Written Answers to Questions [26 March 2007]

26 Mar 2007 : Column 1360W

"Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent producing the report Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region; who the author was; what the author's qualifications in this subject were; to whom the report was circulated; what actions were taken on the recommendations of the report; and if he will make a statement. [128505]

Mr. Ingram: It is not possible to provide accurate details as to the cost of producing the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena report as this was one of several tasks that were included within a single contract and detailed costings for each of these tasks is not available. However, it is estimated that the overall cost was approximately £50,000.

The author of the report was a contractor and was employed by the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) on a long-term contract. Further details of the author, including the name, are being withheld under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

The report was circulated within the DIS and to other branches of the Ministry of Defence and RAF. As recommended by the report, the DIS ceased to monitor unidentified aerial phenomena sighting reports (and therefore reaped a saving in staff time) as they contained no information of Defence Intelligence interest and no further action was taken."

The response avoids answering some key points. What credentials did the author of the report have to write such a report? Why were the conclusions about plasma representing a (minor) risk to air traffic not circulated? Why was DAS (the public focal point for UFO reports) not informed about Condign or it's conclusions? The Condign team will continue to try and find answers to these questions and to identify the author.

Also, see the Guardian article from 22nd February at Guardian online

In 2001, David Clarke and Andy Roberts discovered the existence and secured the release of the Flying Saucer Working Party report, but some parts were retained under Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act pending permission to release the relevant sections from "interested parties". Dave Clarke followed up on this and the retained sections have now been made available. The transcriptions below relate to paragraph 4 of the first page of the report, the redacted version of which can be viewed here. The newly-released text is in bold letters.

"...specialist consultants. By the courtesy of C.I.A., Washington, we have been enabled to study two reports (Project "Sign" and Project "Grudge")...."

"....the beginning of 1949. We have been informed by the C.I.A. that, in order to avoid undue stimulation of a subject that has already received too much public and professional interest, nearly all copies of these reports have been destroyed, and we have been particularly requested to exercise discretion as to their use."

Condign team-members Gary Anthony and Dave Clarke jointly authored an article for the August edition of IUR (Vol 30, No 4). The full article (5 Mb, Adobe Acrobat) can now be downloaded from the following link. Thank you to Mark Rodeghier of CUFOS for providing the file.

IUR Vol. 30 Issue 4 Condign article, August 2006

Documents released to Andy Roberts and Dave Clarke show beyond any doubt that the MoD were considering taking steps to prevent the public from finding out about Defence Intelligence interest in UFOs. Exactly what those steps might have entailed has not been disclosed, but options would include retention beyond the usual 30-year period required by the Public Records Act. For more details, read an article from The Guardian at:

Guardian online

THE CONDIGN REPORT
BRITAIN’S SECRET U.F.O STUDY

Following a successful appeal for a review by Dave Clarke, the MoD have released some of the previously retained paragraphs from the condign report. These are available on-line at the MoD web site:

http://tinyurl.com/rjrsm

There are one or two items of minor interest, nothing of breathtaking importance. It is interesting to see what the MoD thought was sensitive to start with though.

Following up on some loose ends, Dave Clarke submitted a further FoIA request on 22nd may. His questions and the MoD responses are as follows:

'1. Please provide me with copies of correspondence arising from DIST's request to a number of MoD branches (covering letter of UAP report, dated 4 December 2000) for "comments you may wish to make on the [UAP] report...please direct such comments to AD/DI55."'

response:
'All accessible files for the period in question have been scrutinised, but no correspondence from the MoD Branches who were invited to comment on the report has been found.'

'2. Further to request (1) could you supply copies of any correspondence arising from the "subsidiary recommendations" made on pg 11 of the UAP Report Executive Summary (February 2000) namely that: "The flight safety aspects of the findings should be made available to the appropriate RAF Air Defence and other military and civil authorities which operate aircraft, particularly those operating fast and at low altitude." Could you confirm these findings were passed to the DAO and CAA and if so what specific recommendations have been made to aircrew as a result.'

response:
'The report was distributed to the addressees as outlined in the covering letter (D/DIST/11/10 dated 4 December 2000). No further correspondence regarding the 'subsidiary recommendations' has been found on the accessible files for the period in question. I can, however, confirm that the findings of the report were sent to DAO (Directorate of Air Operations) as UKADGE (UK Air Defence Ground Environment) was a post within DAO. DIS did not send the report directly to the CAA. Any further dissemination of the report would have been the decision of the addressees concerned and consultation with the DIS would not have been required.'

From the above, it seems likely that the addressees were not sufficiently inspired by the report to offer any comment on it, and that the health and safety aspects of the risks to civil and military aircraft were not conveyed to either military or civilian pilots.

In addition, Dave Clarke also requested a review of the decision to withold information from the covering letter which was sent out with the Condign report to other MoD departments, and his request succeeded. The new versions of the letter are now available on-site (the first two documents at HERE) - if the old versions appear, press "F5" on your keyboard to refresh the screen while displaying the document.

Watch this page for further updates!